I utilised a self administered questionnaire to collect quantitative data for this study.
3.6.1 Questionnaires
Questionnaires are a means to elicit information from subjects through written responses (Burns & Grove, 2009:406). The questionnaire that was used in this study was adapted from the CDC's
Youth Risk Behaviour survey (YRBS) that had been implemented nationally in secondary schools in Texas. The revised university version is known as the YRBS-C and consists of 84 dichotomous (yes-no) and multiple-choice items. The survey also asked for demographic data and personal behaviours in the areas of alcohol and other drug use, violence, sexuality, nutrition and exercise. This questionnaire is thirteen (13) pages long (CDC's Youth Risk Behaviour survey (YRBS, 2011) (Refer to Appendix 2).
The analysis of the questionnaire data will serve to refine the interview guide that will frame the semi-structured focus group interviews, which would follow at a later stage in the study. Denscombe (2011:157) describes questionnaires as a very good way to gain information on both facts and opinions in practice. The following types of questionnaires could be used for data collection; mailed or telephonic; on a website and self-administered (Burns & Grove, 2009:406). I made use of the self-administered questionnaire, which was given to peer educators at the same time. This helped to ensure that the return rate was higher. As far as possible, I used examples before any item that might be confusing. This is especially important if the item involves ranking responses. Respondents were shown exactly what they needed to do. An attempt was made to organise the questions into a logical sequence. The questionnaire started off with a few interesting and non-threatening items. The questionnaire was administered in a lecture hall at this HEI.
3.6.2 Focus group interviews
Berg (2009) claims that focus group interviews give the researcher an opportunity to observe how the participants socially construct knowledge in their attitudes, opinions and experiences in much detail. Burns and Grove (2009) say that focus groups were designed to ascertain the participants' perceptions in a focused area in a setting that is non-threatening. The effective use of focus groups needs careful planning. It is important to be clear on what the aims of the focus groups are and how one would recruit for the focus groups. I did focus groups with all the peer educators, as well as other students in residences who participated in group discussions, which were facilitated by these peer educators. I discussed venues with the trainers as well as the dates and times when the interviews would take place. The trainers were instrumental in assisting me to organise the focus groups with the peer educators. Both the trainers and peer educators assisted me with the arrangements for the focus groups with other students in the residences on the three different campuses of this HEI. All participants signed a written consent form, prior to the focus group interviews (Refer to Appendix 20 and Appendix 21). During the focus groups,
the subjects were valuable resources of information, and they were able to report and articulate their feelings. I was able to observe some of the group dynamics that existed among participants. All focus groups were recorded with a digital hand recorder and transcribed.
3.6.3 Personal interviews
Personal interviews would be conducted with all the staff in the HIV/AIDS unit. I attended two staff meetings with the HIV/AIDS Unit to discuss the research during the initial planning phase of the study. Staff in the HIV/AIDS Unit consists of the HOD, the receptionist, the two office management interns, the two health promoters and the two staff members who head the peer education training programmes. The unit also facilitates international students on an annual basis. These students come to work voluntarily in the unit. At the time of data collection the HIV/AIDS Unit was hosting two students from Germany. They willingly volunteered to be interviewed. However, they requested to be interviewed together. I granted this request. I recorded all interviews with a digital hand recorder. Each participant signed a written consent form prior to the interview. A moderator was present during all the interviews (Burns & Grove, 2009:513) (Refer to 3.6.2). All the interviews took place in the meeting room in the HIV/AIDS Unit, so that the staff could return to their work stations at completion of the interviews.
3.6.4 The Moderator Role
Appointing a moderator is important. Professional moderators bring their experience in working with people to the focus group. Krueger (1996: 38). I had arranged for a moderator to be present during all the focus group interviews (Burns & Grove, 2009:513). This also enhanced the validity and the ethicalness of this research project, as the moderator ensured that all participants were dealt with in a respectful and fair manner. After moderating a few focus groups, the moderator might feel that he had heard the topic being discussed in various ways and by now the information is regarded as old “stuff”. However, it still deserves the utmost respect and listening that was present the first time he heard the information. Lack of respect will quickly be passed on to participants. This might essentially lead to the shutdown of meaningful communication(Krueger,1996;3-4).The moderator should be a knowledgeable person and should be up to date with research methodology, as well as the topic to be discussed. The moderator will be able to have a powerful influence on the process of interaction that will take place within the group. The way in which the moderator behaves, plus the verbal and non-verbal cues that he or she gives to the group, are crucial elements for a focus group to be successful.
Extreme dominance or extreme passivity from the moderator, may lead to problems (Burns and Grove, 2009). Empathy and positive regard for all people are critical qualities for an effective moderator. The moderator should also be ready to hear unpleasant views. In order to do this, the moderator has to be self disciplined. Focus groups could be jeopardised if moderators cannot hold back their personal opinions. The moderator should be professional and therefore will be able to stay emotionally unattached to the topic and stay neutral at all times (Krueger, 1996, 5- The moderator that attended all the focus groups and personal interviews, is indeed a credible person who has many years of not only lecturing research, but are hands on currently with many high profile research projects. He possesses unique talents and skills which make him an accredited and experienced moderator as described by Krueger (1996: 7) (refer to Appendix 3).
3.6.5 Overview of portfolios
Spaulding and Straut (2006:69) describe portfolios as a cornerstone in education as they felt that portfolios played a major role in the authentic assessment movement in studies which examined portfolios for their effects on students' learning. Portfolios are known to be used in subjects like Science, Mathematics, Literacy and Social Studies (Roth, 1994 cited in Spaulding & Straut, 2006:69). A substantial portion of the literature on portfolios focused on the training of student- teachers. Portfolios are regarded as one of the most important assessment tools in the training of teachers. They also assist new teachers to find employment, as well as to determine whether the student has successfully completed his/her training and whether the student is ready to graduate from teachers training college (Barton & Collins, 1997; Klekker, 2000; Morgan, Shannon & Ball, 1996). Mertens (2010:355-358) discusses performance assessment in tandem with the compilation of a portfolio. He claims that a portfolio might include collections of the participants' work on which the participant's performance could be assessed. This work might be written assignments, video recordings, or solutions or recommendations for problems. As times are changing and HEIs are moving with technology and the integration of technology into classroom instruction, portfolios used in teacher preparation programmes have also begun to use technology. However, a review of the literature on the electronic use of portfolios is more opinion based than empirical. Those persons lobbying for e-portfolios reported innovation and creativity from those who used them. They also encourage interactivity amongst all stakeholders. These stakeholders include both the trainers and the student teachers at HEIs (Spaulding, Straut, Wright & Cakar, 2006:69).
In this project portfolios were used as part of the training of peer educators. Therefore, stakeholders were both the trainers as well as the peer educators. During the training programmes the peer educators are taught how to compile the portfolio. They are also taught how to make a power-point presentation. These students are expected to make use of power- point presentation when they have to facilitate a group or do a presentation. Each peer educator had to compile a portfolio of all their training sessions, community outreach and proof of leadership, while they were executing their duties as peer educators. These portfolios are marked and peer educators are given an equal chance to be rewarded in the different categories at their annual awards ceremony.
There are challenges that researchers face when using portfolios as part of their data collection, particularly in evaluation studies. This is basically because of the subjective nature of the collection process and the scoring of the data assessed in the portfolio (Mertens, 2010:357). The two co-assessors were extremely subjective, as they knew the peer educators on a more personal level and interacted with them more frequently than I did. They tend to be more lenient towards the peer educators, because they were close friends. They also did not want to severe their relationship with the peer educators, as these peer educators were the people that they socialise with outside of working hours as well. The two markers therefore made themselves guilty of favouritism. Here the subjective nature of the assessment, as described by Mertens (2010), is very relevant as it could lead to bias, which was the case in this project. I discussed this afterwards with the HOD and training officers and make some recommendations for the assessment of portfolios in Chapter 4 (Refer to Appendix 17). This could also influence the peer educator's chance of coming into consideration for an award. Most of the peer educators completed their stint in this training programme and did not necessarily enter into the programme the following year again.
I made use of a rubric to develop new portfolio guidelines, for future use in this Unit for the assessment of the peer educators' portfolios (Refer to Appendix 17). A rubric presents a "gradation of performance from poor to excellent or above standard, at standard or below standard. A scale value is assigned to each gradation (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)" (Mertens, 2010:357). Portfolios could provide a wealth of information, as was proved by the teachers training programmes. This will also be relevant for my study, as peer educators had to provide evidence in the portfolios of their involvement, leadership and acquired skills, as well as how they transferred those skills to their peers.
3.6.6 Observation
Data collection by means of observation is often described as the main research tool or as a supplement to other methods (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006:57). I used the less structured or qualitative method of observation, where I observed and witnessed first hand the experiences of the events as they were happening around me (Descombe, 2011; Sapsford & Jupp, 2006:57). Through this I directly gained valuable knowledge and information. This assisted me in my understanding of the operations of the peer education training programmes (Sapsford & Jupp, 2006:57-58). Without any observation, participation or interacting with the peer educators and trainers, it would not have been possible to gain in-depth insight into the peer educators' activities. Here I remain an observer from the outside. This also happens in a much less formal and unstructured manner (Babbie & Mouton, 2004:293; Sapsford & Jupp, 2006:57). In contrast, I could have been part of the observational research in a much more structured and systematic way. In this way the researcher is a member of the group that he/she is studying, while doing the study herself (Babbie & Mouton, 2004:293; Sapsford & Jupp, 2006:57).
During observation I observed the frequency of events and how long they lasted. At all times the peer educators' behaviour and body language, as well as their interaction with the trainer, were noted. During the observation process I made field notes and I gained an insight into how peer educators and trainers responded to each other in a given situation and in particular circumstances while they were involved in training (Denscombe, 2011:200-208).
It is hoped that through acquiring this knowledge and these skills, students will be influenced to change their attitudes and behaviour with regard to sexuality, HIV/AIDS and STIs.